Taylor's response was misleading

Editor,

Let's look at how misleading Mike Taylor was in his response to Ray Peck's letter in The Leader a few weeks ago. Taylor wrote that he voted for the deregulation bill the first time he "heard" it.

Since Taylor sponsored the de-reg bill, it seems safe to assume that legislators sponsoring a bill would read and study it beforehand. To sign on as a sponsor, you should know what the heck you're sponsoring. During the second reading of the bill, which is the debate stage, Taylor again voted for it. Less than 24 hours later, with no debate or discussion, he voted against it.

Third reading is usually just a formality but it is the final vote. Occasionally, but very rarely, a bill passes second reading and fails on third reading, after much lobbying, etc. But in some cases, and I suspect it's true here, when he knows there are enough votes to pass it, he voted against it just so he can claim it either way later on, as he's doing now.

Also, he never made a motion to have his name removed as a sponsor, which is almost always respected and approved when people make that motion after learning more about what's in a bill.

There were also two calls for a special session after the regular session in 1997 to fix the devastating de-reg bill and he voted against both calls for a special session.

Treas Glinnwater

Ronan